DSBCK,

There may exist another dimension to the employer's response to your husband's resignation/instant dismissal. You report that your husband's former employer destroyed his Construction Supervisor's diary by tearing out all pages with writing on them.

I suspect the employer has committed a most serious offence in so doing.

I am not sure what the law requires in WA, but a Construction Supervisor's diary normally has a special status as a required record that must be kept: in all probability there was a legal obligation that rested upon your husband to actually keep such a diary (which, by your account, he did), together with a corresponding legal obligation upon his employer to preserve such a record. (That is the underlying reason why the actual diary would have been provided by the employer in the first case.)

It may be that your husband should seek advice as to how to proceed in reporting this destruction of a statutorily required record. It may even be important for the preservation of your husband's reputation as a construction supervisor that he should himself report to the regulatory authority the destruction of this record. The seemingly improper seizure of his personal information in the process may be a separate issue.

The reported behaviour of the two managers in responding to a resignation with personal abuse is a hallmark of the corporate psychopath. They may have other things to hide of which your husband knew nothing, but which his resignation one way or another threatened to expose.

I wonder whether an audit, whether conducted by a regulatory authority, or by the company's own auditors, might not reveal managerial improprieties of the nature of embezzelment? For example, a claiming by such middle managment to its own financial department of having made the payment of bonuses or other termination obligations in respect of a resignation of an employee, but in reality having perverted such payments to their own private advantage.

A regulatory compliance audit would likely end up costing this company dearly. They would have brought it upon themselves.

DSBCK,

Been thinking further about the scenario you have described as the response to your husband's resignation.

He may have been set up by the two managers in question. It may have all along been his Construction Supervisor's Diary that they wanted to get their hands on. The diary he was obliged to keep, and in all good faith did keep by your account, may have contained evidence of activities or decisions that may have been in some way embarrassing or incriminating in respect to at least those two 'managers', if not more widely of the company for which they work.

The better-paying job offer from another employer may even have been orchestrated by these two in order to get rid of your husband as a potential witness to something that had been going on in or around that company's operations. Your husband may not have even realized he had been a witness to anything, but those two may have perceived him as a potential threat if, in their estimation, some proverbial was about to hit some fan somewhere.

It is interesting that the two of them were there together when your husband's (polite) letter of resignation was handed in. Two mens' word against one, and all that. They knew, or at least strongly suspected, what was coming, and seemingly had already agreed upon a plan of action.

I guess the proof of this particular speculative pudding will reside in whether the better job offer really materializes or lasts.

Subject to taking your own legal or other advice as to how to proceed in this matter, a discreet and appropriately witnessed meeting with the auditors of your husband's former employing company may ultimately produce surprising results. It should not be expected to result (at least in the short term) in payment of your husband's proper termination entitlements, but may sheet home responsibility for improper managerial conduct right where it belongs.

Something else may be going on in or around this company's operations, something improper, or even criminal.

Gratitude may eventually be expressed!

AS I POSTED ELSEWHERE;
IF I WERE TO CHALLENGE THE IR LAWS I WOULD SUCCEED, AS I DID WITH THE ELECTION ISSUE ON 19 JULY 2006 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA THAT VOTING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY NOT PERMITTED TO BE COMPULSORY.
AS A "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I KNOW WHAT THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CONCEALED FROM ITS IR JUDGMENT OF 14-11-2006!
.
FOR EXAMPLE;
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
And
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
And
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made.
And
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
And
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.
.
AND, THERE IS A LOT MORE TO THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IR LAWS!
.
PERHAPS YOUR HUSBAND SIMPLY SHOULD PURSUE STATE IR LAWS STILL GOVERNING?